Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are
not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME
COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-413

FEBRUARY
TERM, 2006

In
re K.R., Juvenile } APPEALED
FROM:

}

} Chittenden Family Court

}

} DOCKET NO. 113-2-04 Cnjv

Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

In
the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Mother appeals from the family court=s order terminating her residual parental rights in K.R.
She argues that the family court=s conclusion that she will not be able to
parent within a reasonable time is based in significant part on an unsupported
finding of fact. We affirm.

K.R. was born in January 2004 addicted to
opiates and was placed on methadone when he was six days old. Mother has a
long history of substance abuse; another child was removed from her care in
2002 for this reason. Mother used methadone, klonopine, cocaine, OxyContin,
and other drugs while pregnant with K.R. She missed numerous prenatal care
appointments and began missing doctor=s appointments after K.R.=s birth as well. In February 2004, the Department for
Children and Families (DCF) became concerned about drug use in mother=s home. K.R. was placed in mother=s custody subject to a protective order. Mother violated
the protective order in March 2004 and K.R. was placed with his maternal
grandmother subject to another protective order. Among other conditions,
mother was not to engage in any violent, threatening behavior or abuse her
mother either verbally or physically, and she was not to have any unsupervised
contact with K.R. Shortly after the placement, mother assaulted her mother in
K.R.=s presence. K.R. was taken into DCF
custody and mother admitted that he was CHINS due to her ongoing substance
abuse problems and her medical neglect of him. K.R. was placed in DCF custody,
where he remains. DCF initially sought to reunify K.R. with mother but in
light of mother=s failure to comply with the case plan in
any meaningful way, it changed its goal to adoption and filed a petition to
terminate mother=s residual parental rights in November
2004.

After two days of hearings in June 2005,
the court issued an order terminating mother=s
residual parental rights. The court made numerous findings of fact, only one
of which mother challenges on appeal. The court began by recounting mother=s failure to comply with the case plan. It explained that
within one month of the disposition hearing, mother failed to appear for a
court hearing, missed counseling sessions, and tested positive for opiates and
cocaine. She repeatedly missed her methadone doses and did not attend her
anger management session. Her visits with K.R. were suspended as a result.
The court found that mother had the opportunity to bond and attach with K.R., but
she did not take advantage of it. From his birth through his first year of
life, she continued to use drugs, which presented a risk of harm to K.R. and
rendered mother unavailable to him. Additionally, while K.R. was in DCF
custody, mother was convicted of four crimes. She was placed on probation,
which she violated. Mother continued to have difficulty complying with
conditions of probation. The court found that, at a case plan review in
September 2004, mother suggested that she might move to Arizona. In a
footnote, the court stated that, subsequent to the hearings in this case, DCF
was notified that mother had in fact moved to Arizona.

The court found that at the time of the
termination hearing, mother had not been in any counseling other than anger
management counseling. She had not visited K.R. for four weeks, and her visits
had been sporadic throughout the time that K.R. was in DCF custody. Although
mother had tested clean for substances since January 2005, the court found it
apparent that her level of addiction and substance abuse required more than
mere methadone monitoring and anger management counseling. Mother was pregnant
again as well, which further complicated her methadone treatment. The court
explained that mother minimized and blamed others for her problems since the
inception of the case and her mother had enabled and supported her in this
denial. Mother had demonstrated an inability to put K.R.=s needs before her own. K.R. was now eighteen months old
and had been in DCF custody and placed away from mother for all but two months
of his life. The court stated that this was not only a significant time in his
life but also a critical time to have missed out on the nurture and caregiving
of his biological parent. The court found that mother was presently unable to
parent K.R. and would be unable to meet K.R.=s
needs in the foreseeable future. It explained that K.R. was thriving with his
foster parents and agreed with expert testimony that it would be harmful to
remove him from their home. Based on these and other findings, the court
concluded that mother had stagnated in her ability to care for K.R. and that
termination of mother=s residual rights was in K.R.=s best interests. Mother appealed.

On appeal, mother asserts that the court=s findings that she planned to move to Arizona and that she
did in fact move to Arizona are not supported by the record. She argues that
the court=s conclusion to terminate her residual
rights was based in significant part on these findings.

When the termination of parental rights
is sought, the trial court must conduct a two-step analysis under 33 V.S.A. ' 5532(a). In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 291 (1994). The
court must first find that there has been a substantial change in material
circumstances, which is most often found when a parent=s ability to care for a child has either stagnated or deteriorated
over time. Id. The court must next assess whether termination of
parental rights is in a child=s best interests. Id. The most
important factor in this analysis is the likelihood that the natural parent will
be able to resume his or her parental duties within a reasonable period of
time. In re B.M., 165 Vt. 331, 336 (1996). AAs long as the court applied the proper standard, we will
not disturb its findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we will affirm
its conclusions if they are supported by the findings.@In re G.S., 153 Vt. 651, 652 (1990) (mem.).

Mother=s
assertion that the court=s conclusion rested Ain significant part@ on its finding that she had moved to
Arizona is wholly without merit. The court=s
analysis plainly reflects that its decision was based on mother=s substance abuse problems and her failure to secure proper
treatment, among numerous other factors. As the court explained, mother failed
to make sufficient progress during the time that K.R. had been under the court=s supervision. Her participation in services had been
minimal and had little impact on the crucial issues that brought K.R. into DCF
custody. Mother admitted actively abusing substances from the time that K.R.
came into custody in February 2004 until January 2005, and, despite her claimed
sobriety, mother had not participated in a meaningful way in substance abuse counseling.
Mother maintained a level of denial of the impact of her own substance abuse
and mental health issues on K.R. both at the time that he was taken into DCF
custody and the present time. She failed to demonstrate that she had learned
how to protect K.R., and she could not provide a safe home for K.R. She did
not fully understand or accept the depths and magnitude of her substance abuse
and mental health problems, nor had she put any solutions into practice in any
effective manner. Any error in the court=s finding that mother was contemplating a
move to Arizona, or that she had in fact moved, is harmless. The court=s conclusion that mother would not be able to resume her ability
to parent within a reasonable period of time is well-supported by the court=s remaining findings. See In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175,
178 (1993) (upholding family court=s decision to terminate parental rights
despite erroneous finding of fact where remainder of court=s findings were sufficient to sustain decision); In re
C.M., 157 Vt. 100, 103 (1991) (erroneous finding does not require reversal
where other evidence supported termination of parental rights). We find no
error.